Sunday, February 26, 2012

An open letter to Vic Toews!

Dear Mr. Toews:

You can call us stupid but here's what we, and hopefully many of our readers, are struggling to comprehend after reading your article in The Calgary Herald:

Some have accused me of not reading a bill I've been involved in shaping for over half a decade. Ironically, when I read most media coverage of C-30, I am struck by just how poorly the bill is understood by many writers.

If YOU don't know what's in a Bill you've been championing for years is it reasonable Canadians should? Further, assuming C-30 is so poorly understood by many media writers, why did they go ballistic when you made your beyond asinine comment if we don't support it (in spite of massive flaws) we're on the side of child pornographers.

Even the title of your article raises serious questions. "Shedding light" on a Bill you'd have rammed through Parliament had there not been such a public outcry. Maybe, just maybe Vic Toews you and the government you represent did a lousy job apprising Canadians of the far reaching ramifications of C-30. Nice try though attempting to pull a fast one were we? Too bad you got caught.

Postscript
Hopefully, one of your staffers crafted such a pathetic letter!

Shedding light on Bill C-30 to protect children

By Vic Toews

Saturday, February 25, 2010

I've spent the better part of my career advocating for the safety and
security of Canadians. As a prosecutor, child protection lawyer, federal and
provincial attorney general, and in my current job as Canada's minister of
public safety, I've always made it my goal to put victims first.

Over the years, it became clear to me that Canada's laws were falling far
be-hind the technology used by criminals. The frustration of police was plainly
evident.

After I entered politics, I heard the same story from law enforcement so many
times that I began to wonder if the problem would ever be fixed. Soon after my
appointment as federal justice minister in 2006, I was introduced to the concept
of "lawful access," which dealt with the challenge of fighting online crime. I
was struck by the reality that our approach to the Internet had been shaped in
the era of the rotary phone.

This was by no means a new concept. My Liberal predecessor, Anne McLellan,
made the first attempt at a new law in 2005. Marlene Jennings tried again twice
in the form of private members bills in 2007 and 2009. The government introduced
similar bills twice more: once under Peter Van Loan in 2009 and once by me in
2010.

Despite the tireless efforts of people like Paul Gillespie, formerly of the
Toronto Police Service and now the head of the Kids Internet Safety Alliance
(KINSA), and Roz Prober of Beyond Borders, none of these at-tempts became
law.

Gillespie speaks with passion about the emotional toll child exploitation
investigations take on front line officers. Each day, they are confronted by the
bleak reality that tens of thousands of children are sexually abused in graphic,
unimaginable ways. The reality is that police simply don't have the tools to
effectively fight these crimes. This is true not only of child pornography but
identity theft, online organized crime, and many Internet scams and frauds.

More than a decade ago, police signalled they lacked the tools to keep up
with changing technology. The process of gathering information for
investigations was extremely slow and cumbersome. Today, police are in the same
predicament.

In just one wrenching example from the Kingston Police, as reported in the
Kingston Whig Standard, Detective Constable Stephanie Morgan received information via
the Internet that an individual might attempt suicide.

When she approached an ISP for help in locating the individual, she ran into
a brick wall. "In that case, the Internet service provider refused to give us
that information because of the person's privacy," Morgan said. "To this day, I
don't know who that person was who sent the message.

I don't know if they really were in distress or if they later committed
suicide. I think that would not have happened if this legislation was in place."
Scott Naylor, an inspector with the Ontario Provincial Police Child Sexual
Exploitation Unit recently said, "Obtaining war-rants on all IP addresses
involved in child pornography simply wasn't practical. It's still like putting a
cup under Niagara Falls, that's all we're catching."

On February 14, our government re-introduced legislation that closely resembles
the efforts of McLellan and Jennings, but with improvements to better protect
the privacy of Canadians. C-30 allows police to request basic customer
information to assist with investigations, but makes police more ac-countable
through audits and obligations to report to federal and provincial privacy
commissioners. We also reduced the number of basic subscriber information points
that police could request of service providers - the modern equivalent of phone
book information - from 11 down to six.

Let me be clear: Bill C-30 creates no new powers to access the content of
e-mails, web-browsing history or phone calls beyond that which already exists in
Canadian law.

Some have accused me of not reading a bill I've been involved in shaping for
over half a decade. Ironically, when I read most media coverage of C-30, I am
struck by just how poorly the bill is understood by many writers.

The government intends to send this legislation directly to committee for a
full examination of potential amendments to update our laws while ensuring the
privacy of Canadians is respected.

I hope that all Canadians, and especially members of Parliament and the
media, will read, discuss, and reflect on this bill.

Vic Toews is a lawyer, the federal minister of public safety and the member
of Parliament for the Manitoba riding of Provencher.